Cho Seung Hui

An analysis of the massacre at Virginia Tech on April 16, 2007 resulting in 32 murdered people, both faculty and students, reveals several glaring controversies: gun control, government regulation of mental health, and as an additional side-note, the influence of extreme violence of the media (specifically the 2003 South Korean film Oldboy). Cho Seung-Hui legally obtained two semiautomatic pistols through local gun dealers. His ability to have done so questions the government's effectiveness with background checks pertaining to obtaining firearms.¹ This also brings up the question of Cho's mental status. His mental instability had been medically acknowledged by the state medical system, but it did not appear on his background checks challenging the state government's need for involvement with mentally unstable patients. The intent of this paper is not to attack any side of the argument, or side with one, but rather to present the facts. Tell the story like it is.

On the morning of April 16, 2007, after a month and a half of preparation, Cho Seung Hui open fired in the West Ambler Johnston Hall on the Virginia Tech campus. Emily J. Hilscher and Ryan C. Clark were the first two of the thirty others to follow. Two hours later, at Norris Hall he placed chains on three of the main entrances with bomb threat notices and began to open fire on students and faculty there. Several acclaimed faculty members were killed when they tried to protect their students from the entering assaulter. Authorities found him in Jocelyne Couture-Nowak's French classroom with a self-inflicted gunshot wound to the head.²

Gun control is an issue plaguing the Virginia Tech massacre. Many fingers have been pointed to the lax gun control laws in Virginia that allowed Cho to obtain two semiautomatic pistols. The Virginia State Police website had a 16 question questionnaire on obtaining a gun which, if you answered yes to any of the questions, basically determined whether or not you were eligible by law. Because Cho had not been forced to go to any mental institution or any such thing, he was able to slip past the question pertaining to mental instability.³ Many people have opted and lobbied for a tightening in gun control laws, but many other people attribute the massacre disaster as a failure on the part of the Virginia Tech campus, not on the gun dealers. The gun dealers say that had the Virginia Tech campus allowed students to own guns (which many were legally allowed to do), Cho would not have been able to have killed as many people.

The second issue at hand is the state's regulation with mental instabilities. Two government officials stated after the shooting that Cho had been diagnosed with mental illness. Just his usual outward appearance should have tipped someone off: emotionless, seeming angry or brooding without any social contact.⁴ He wrote demented and disturbing plays and poems that one teacher said of his work, “Kids write about murder and suicide all the time. But there was something that made all of us pay attention closely. None of us were comfortable with that.”⁵ Cho was examined by the state health board to see whether or not he was mentally stable, and they deemed him to be unstable, but not so much as to be a hazard. They suggested that an alternative to involuntary admittance to a mental hospital was suitable, which also did not affect his chances of getting a firearm because it was not officially involuntary admittance.⁶ This brings forth a question of how much should the government monitor the people, especially when it comes to mentally unstable people, and what restrictions should ensue as a cause of their instability.

A final issue that will be presented here is that of the influence of extremely violent media on people like this. Just as The Matrix was criticized for possibly influencing the Columbine incident⁷, the Park Chan-Wook film Oldboy has been connected to Cho Seung-Hui's Virginia Tech Massacre.⁸ In the media package Cho sent to NBC, he was shown imitating the main character of the viciously graphic film in similar stance holding a hammer causing a professor at Virginia Tech to make the connection between Cho's South Korean heritage, the imitation and the film Oldboy. It is now disputed whether or not Cho had seen the film (but given his South Korean heritage and the immense popularity of the film, it would be hard to claim he did not see the film either).

These questions that were brought up by the Cho Seung-Hui shooter incident at Virginia Tech do not attempt to point fingers at anyone or blame anyone for the terrible things that happened. Clearly, it was the work of a very troubled and disturbed young man who needed observation. The questions presented in this paper, given the rising shooter incidents in the United States, are only here to pose the problem of whether or not there are proper precautions and regulations that could prevent future massacres.

Sources

Corliss, Richard, “The Movie that Motivated Cho?”, Time Magazine Online, 19 April 2007.

Fernandez, Manny and Marc Santora, “Gunman Showed Signs of Anger,” The New York Times, 18 April 2007.

Gelineau, Kristen, “Police: VA Tech Bloodbath Laster 9 Minutes,” The Washington Post,

25 April 2007.

Griffin, Drew, et al, “Campus killer's... within gun laws.” CNN, 19 April 2007.

Hofman, Michael A. “The Columbine Matrix,” Independent History & Research, 23 April 1999.

Shapira, Ian and Michael E. Raune, “Student Wrote About Death... What Cho Seung Hui Would Do,” The Washington Post, 17 April 2007, A01.

Virginia Tech Review Panel, “Mass Shootings at Virginia Tech,” Review of the Review Panel, August 2007.